Earlier we reported on Matt Shakman’s comments about exiting the Star Trek 4 project, and the director has more to say about Paramount’s plans to continue the Kelvin movies on the big screen.
This update comes from Collider who also spoke to Shakman while he is out promoting his work on The Consultant. The director said he couldn’t really talk about the story behind the Star Trek movie he had been working on, because the project was ongoing:
I’m probably not really allowed to speak too much about it, because I think what they’re still working on is a version of what I had been working on for the time that I was involved.
When Shakman exited the project last summer to take on the Fantastic Four movie for Marvel, Paramount issued an official statement describing the movie as “our upcoming Star Trek film,” and saying the studio was “excited about the creative vision of this next chapter and look forward to bringing it to audiences all around world.”
Collider‘s Steve Weintraub suggested Trek could work better as a smaller-budget film, Shakman said:
I think in our day and age now, anytime you go to space in a movie, it’s expensive. When you’re flying around in the Enterprise, even if you’re going to land and be in one place for a long time, it’s still pretty expensive. You have a large cast as well, many of whom are really well-known, because they’re amazing. And so just bringing that group together again, isn’t a cheap event. So I think, yes, the movie that I was planning to make was going to be a large tentpole film.
Shakman went on to say with J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek movie in 2009, the franchise had been able to expand its audience, and Paramount’s goal for Star Trek 4 is to continue to “find more and more of an audience for Star Trek.”
Since removing Star Trek 4 from their 2023 release calendar last September, the studio has yet to make any official public announcements about the project.
You can watch the full Collider discussion on Star Trek with Shakman below.
Keep up with all the news on Star Trek 4 and upcoming Trek films at TrekMovie.com.
Very revealing interview. Paramount won’t want to make a cheap theatrical feature. Especially not with this talent.
If I was in charge of greenlighting, I would make the next film within the Kelvin Universe but craft the story seem as if is in the Prime Universe.
This would satisfy everyone, including the actors, who would only come back now for a reason at least as important as money.
Frankly, I don’t think Trek has the ability to do Marvel box office bucks, as presently constructed.
If you want to continue the Kelvin-verse, get rid of Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana (they’ll account for like $30m of the budget)– make Spock the Captain of the Enterprise-A (hey, it happened in the prime universe), with Pegg and Cho, and a mostly new crew, and have them on a new adventure with a more modest, $90m budget. It CAN be done, Strange New Worlds looks very theatrical at times, and that’s what, $8M an episode?
With a $90M budget, all you need to do to turn a nice profit is what, $200m at the box office?
Not saying there are any easy solutions, but I think everyone agrees one of the biggest problems is the studio’s financial expectations. Because I totally foresee them pumping $200m into this thing, thinking it will be a billion dollar blockbuster, and it winding up a big flop, and a bad movie that Trekkies hate.
Matalas had some insights, in one of his recent interviews here, about how unrealistic is a $100 million theatrical release is even with minimal effects.
Inflation is a significant part of that. Production is just that much more expensive this side of COVID.
It still kills me when I hear all these well-meaning fans who just don’t understand that $200 million a decade ago is like $275 million in today’s dollars. Thise of us who took Econ 101 in college will tell you that if the goal would be to produce a new Star Trek movie for $200 million in today’s dollars that’s actually a very significant budget (say 25-30%) cut from a $200 million production cost a decade ago. It’s weird how I see the same fans over and over here not getting that at all, and saying silly stuff like they could make a Star Trek movie with the existing cast for $100 million… that’s just F’ing ridiculous, and it’s misleading many fans who then parrot this nonsense. And that’s why Matalas said what he did — he knows that a $100mil Trek theatrical release is a crock of shit.
The goal should be to make a good Star Trek movie for $200 million and the global box office goal should be $550 mil. – which is not marvel money and which is actually consistent with what STID made — again adjusting the dollars to todays values. And at the same time the suits at P need to be realistic that OK they’re going to use the theatrical release to make just a small profit on the movie investment but then all the revenue streams following that are gravy profits… and that revenue stream goes on for years.
So both the fans who don’t understand economics in terms of dollar value changes over time and the suits at Paramont need to get real here. Because a Star Trek movie is never going to make Marvel-level profits, and likewise they’re unlikely to be able to make one for less than $200 million in today’s dollars.
Not possible these barely do twice budget and the studios want 3 times budget. Beyond outright flopped. It needed to make 370 just to break even at twice budget and it made 343.
If you believe the 3 times budget equals the minimum profit, then yeah they all basically lost money then lol.
But let’s say they needed to just earn 2.5 times the budget which is a bit more reasonable, it’s still very bleak.
ST09: $150 X 2.5= $375 (Actual BO was $385 million)
STID: $190 X 2.5= $475 (Actual BO was $467 million).
STB: $185 X 2.5= $462 (Actual BO was $343 million)
That’s just beyond pathetic for so-called ‘tentpole’ movies. These are minimum profits. And the first two couldn’t even do over $10 million and Beyond was $120 million underwater. Now imagine if studios really need a film to make 3 times it’s profits to be considered a success? Beyond shouldn’t have been made for anything close to that money. Frankly neither should STID but I understood it at the time because most sequels do increase in budgets. Still ridiculous though.
But what morons keep giving these movies these ridiculous budgets?? It makes no sense at all.
They don’t make any real money for what they cost, period. And the next one can make even less than Beyond did. If they can’t make one for at least $150 million or under, then they shouldn’t make one at all then given that sad track record.
It’s not exactly a mystery why another can’t get financed today. If you were an investor and looked at those figures would you be throwing big money at the next one? I certainly wouldn’t lol.
Nah, it’s between 2.25 and 2.5 today given the digital distribution system has significantly reduced distribution costs — and that assumes 40% of the revenue is North American.
If you make it for $200 mil, and you get $550 mil in revenue, you are $100 mil in revenue in the black…plus then the multiple long-term, post-theatrical profit streams kick in, and those go on for years, if not decades for a Trek movie.
The issues here is the P has to realize this and not expect Marvel-like revenues.
There’s also interest applied to the dollars spent on these movies. The fact that they were willing to sit on a finished movie for over half a year with TREK 09 just flabbergasted me, just on that aspect alone. I guess opening it in summer meant that much to JJ, to differentiate it from all the Trek movies post-TFF.
Some of the analysis about that at the time was that the move was because Paramount had few summer blockbusters ready because of the writer’s strike and Trek filled the need. I think that Warners moved a Harry Potter movie for the same reason.
Actually I think it was a smarter move to move it to the summer of 09. It made the movie feel bigger and it was very much a summer film IMO. But sure there is always more competition then but opening it in early May made sense.
And they had time to promote it too, back when they understood what that word meant. ;)
I agree it has to be made for around the same as Beyond and they have to do better at choosing an engaging and exciting story, and go all in on advertising. They didn’t promote Beyond, except for that awful Beastie Boys trailer. During an anniversary year.
… and not only that, they inexplicably moved the release date to coincide with the Summer Olympics…WTF?
I’m not sure that your 200/275 thing is correct. I mean, I covered a small film called SEBERG a few years ago that was made (and shot ON FILM) for 9 million. There were probably deferred salaries involved, but it didn’t look bargain-basement at all. The trick with TREK is to balance the above-the-line expenses so that they have something left to spent on art direction and VFX. According to Meyer on TUC the above-the-line was nearly half the budget, which is crazy.
I hear you!
Shatner and co had earned the studio a lot in the 80s hence their salary bumps by time of TUC
Not disputing that at all, but if you spend to show San Fran and spacedock and all that other baggage, you have to cut corners when it comes to the strange new worlds part of things, and that ain’t right. It’s one reason why I always thought the crew should have stayed on the BoP after TSFS, getting in FIREFLY style adventures. You could have saved on all that money that went to showing Earth and Starfleet and put it into showing the adventure really continuing (plus it would have put more emphasis on the gang.)
Matalas is wrong though. And he should know. He’s produced a full season of PIC, and it looks very cinematic, with top notch, movie-level effects, and it’s what, a total of $90m for TEN hours? You’re telling me he could do a TWO hour move for the same money?
Sorry, you can absolutely make an outer space adventure for $90m. You can find ways to save money, redressing standing sets from other shows (like the good old days), limiting the more expensive cast, etc etc.
They won’t make a ST movie without Kirk as Captain
That was for other guy
Problem with that idea is that Quinto was definitely the weakest link in the JJ-verse films. No gravitas. No commitment to being true to the character. A Quinto-led Trek film would be a huge fizzle.
They won’t make a ST movie without Kirk as Captain
Of course, I agree. That was Alpha who thought that.
I don’t see that.
This is is all about marketing. Pine is actually “an actor.” And by that, I mean, he can play a character. We have to care about that character. The trio or quartet for whatever film comes next has to care about each other and care about the problem to be solved, and it has to have some kind of relevance to us.
To me, with this cast, it’s obvious Paramount has a beautiful “crown jewel” in their hands — if only they can shape it properly.
Not having Kirk again is almost as silly as trying to make it for $100 million…Man the brain farts are flying today…lol
They could dig out the unmade PLANET OF TITANS film … one version only has Kirk in it for the teaser and act 3, maybe get Pine’s price down for a smaller role. (btw, NOT serious about this. After years of wondering about it, I finally saw nearly all of Kaufman’s rewritten treatment of this idea, and it was pretty darn horrible.)
Lol, yeah I saw that treatment as well (or a summary of it) — in fact it may have been because a couple years ago you referenced it here and I looked it up. I’ll give it this, it was bold. But it was nuts — perhaps the Trek analogy to Jordowisky’s Dune.
incidentally, my favorite part of the Jordowosky’s Dune doc was learning that he never bothered to read the novel. Lol
If you think Kirk is the reason people go to see the movies, you’re the one with a brain fart. Remember, everyone said the same thing when TNG got the green light “you can’t make a Trek show without Kirk and Spock.”
They can’t make a Trek movie without Kirk until they do.
Take a risk, be bold, do something that can succeed financially first and foremost, don’t break the bank in the hopes of becoming a billion dollar hit, that’s what the studio needs to learn.
Make a good movie, people will show up. Keep it cost effective, even if that means cutting Kirk out — or giving him a very small role — and it can be a profitable venture.
Would a Sulu streaming series in the Kelvin Timeline on the Excelsior draw in viewers? Bob Orci’s idea not mine.
I think a Sulu show on Paramount+ would be pretty popular IMO.
There you go again — extrapolating the crap out of my comments to make it sound like I said something that I didn’t. Lol
Look at all the Star Trek movies to date — The ones with the original series crew made significantly more money than the ones with the next generation crew. Fact!
Certainly they could make one without Kirk or Spock, but those iconic characters immediately generate the worldwide iconic interest that no other characters in Star Trek can match.
If they only make a Trek movie with Kirk, then it’s another why these movies are having the trouble they are and why it’s not a real movie franchise.
And why Star Trek really belongs on TV because you don’t have to rely on any set of characters to be as success although I agree with you I think a movie can be a success in the movies, even with GASP new characters. I don’t think it just has to be just TOS and TNG characters for them to be a hit and silly to suggest it until they actually make a movie with other characters t o know. But yeah I don’t see that happening unfortunately and another reason why I don’t care about the movies as much because they seem scared to anything remotely unique with it.
Translation: there’s still no script, and until that happens, nothing else will.
Given the fact that none of the Bad Robot films made blockbuster money at the box office, I just don’t see how another big budget ST film could possibly be greenlit. Especially after so much time has elapsed since the last one.
Well to be fair, Into Darkness did $467m, good enough for 14th at the worldwide box office in 2013 (and the highest grossing Trek film ever even adjusted for inflation).
The problem was that it cost $190, so the profits were thin. Likewise, Beyond did $343, not a bad number in a vacuum, but the budget was $185m.
Big budget btw doesn’t have to mean astronomical budget. I disagree with Shakman that you can’t make a high quality sci-fi film without spending $175m+. There’s just this mentality that if you have a big IP you have to throw enormous money at it.
ST movies international box office too shallow for big budget to be reclaimed
Yes and a big reason STID even made that was due to China. It was the second biggest box office after America with $60 million. Same for Beyond, it was the second biggest with S65 million and Paramount poured a lot of money to make Star Trek a thing in China. They can’t even guarantee the next movie will get in China and if it does I don’t remotely think it would make close to the same as the others, which wasn’t a lot to begin with. But big enough to give it a cushion.
I do agree with Shakman to an extent, if they are trying to compete with the big boys it will still have to be over $100 million and a bit higher than that. But anything over $150 million is probably not realistic considering the last two movies were disappointments with bigger budgets. It’s probably the main issue, they can’t make the budget lower but they want a ‘big’ movie but then probably afraid it will bomb again. These movies have become an anchor on this franchise.
To me best case scenario they make 4 for 200 million and it makes 430 million at the box office. But Beyond not making double its budget has them scared. Because the series peaked with Into Darkness and its all been going sideways since with higher cast budgets and diminishing box office returns.
No one in their right mind should give any of these movies more than $150 million tops, and even that is probably too much lol.
I made a post about your 3 time budget rule and IF that is true, a $150 million movie would need to make $450 movie just to be considered successful. A $200 million would need to make $600 million and that’s now Marvel/M:I/Transformers/D.C territory, not Star Trek territory unfortunately.
We’re talking about a movie franchise where it’s biggest movie took 5 months just to get to $467 million on a nearly $200 million budget. How many movies today even last in a theater for 5 months? Top Gun Maverick was the only film that stayed that long last year for obvious reasons: it was a hug hit so it stayed. If it petered out at $400 million, it would’ve been on home distribution two months later.
Thats the other problem, the next Trek movie will probably be on Paramount+ after 6 weeks. It will be lucky it clears $300 million by then.
Some people just have to accept its not 2009 anymore. These movies were just breaking even at a time the movie industry was bustling more and there was just one Star Trek product in the market. Throwing crazy money at something that will probably make around $350-400 million, if it’s lucky, is the reason why there hasn’t been a movie in nearly 7 years now.
And there probably won’t be until they can find something that they think will be worth making.
Sure, you can argue against my first statement without actually addressing the larger point. Gotta love internet comment sections.
Dude I wasn’t disagreeing with it, I was only adding to it lol. Nothing you said was false or misleading, so there was nothing more to address, so relax.
My only point was I just don’t know if they can duplicate that same success again without China and that may be a factor why they aren’t exactly breaking their necks to green light another one since China has become so fickle these days, that’s all.
This isn’t exactly controversial if your second biggest market may not even show your next movie, that would be a concernI think lol.
It’s funny you told someone in another thread they shouldn’t assume people are attacking them and you seem to think that’s what I was doing.
So yes, tone can be difficult to read online, but I hope we’re good now. ;)
There are some other considerations now though – Paramount obviously loves making movies that have big box office returns, but often will settle for less return on a marquee property that gets them market share and bragging rights, a la Mission: Impossible. And now that Paramount+ is a thing, they’ve quickly adapted to the idea of a theatrical run being the ultimate marketing tool for films when they make their streaming debuts. So there’s a window for Star Trek films to perform the way the Bad Robot ones have been – mid-level blockbuster but low return on big budgets, because they still feed Paramount+ and licensing deals beyond that. So long as they don’t bankroll massive flops, there’s a way forward.
You would hope not, but both The Motion Picture and Beyond were thrown into production without finished scripts.
TMP had a release date, and that drove the whole screwed-up process. Probably the same for BEYOND, but at least the tech end was secure on that film. What blows my mind is when they go into production with finished scripts that just utterly and completely suck — didn’t anybody take a step back and say, whoa nelly! Let’s find William Goldman or a cheaper but equally competent pro to knock some sense into this mess (looking right square at you, NEMESIS, though to be honest I can find plenty of fault with all the TNG films and even all the TOS ones)
Nemesis worked better as a novel. Far too much was cut in the film. The script is adequate with a better director and casting it could have been better. Just devils advocate, i could as easily slag off Logan as inept and Spiner and Stewart as well. The thing is as much as they tried to recreate Khan and set up the search for Data, Nemesis stands head and shoulders above Picard seasons 1 and 2. The elements i really hate are the Morlock like Remans, the Dune buggy scene, B4, and the super boring senate scenes.
I’ve said it often enough before, but I think the mess could have been semi-redeemed if they’d managed any emotion or resonance with the ending. Always felt that Data should have repeated back to Picard what the captain had told him at the film’s start in Alaska: Shut up! as he slapped the transporter rescue thingie on him. Let some subtext work a little, y’know? (and the fix on the dune buggy seem is simple enough – just paint out the tires and make it a hover-jeep. That was it is stupid, but not bone-stick stupid, so the audience can feel okay about laughing.)
Regarding your last suggestion: The sad part is that even if they wanted to do that I wouldn’t be surprised if the movie simply couldn’t have afforded it.
So was Iron Man. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t.
These movies are so unnecessary now. Really. Let’s move on.
It’s okay to say that now, but wait till a good one comes along and then a groundswell supporting the move for more sequels will come.
It says something that a sophisticated insider like Hawley isn’t clear about how much his NDA still applies.
His sense that somehow, without the expensive talent booked, Abrams and Paramount somehow are still persisting in working toward a tentpole release says something, but I find it in no way positive.
The story behind the scenes (including, I strongly suspect, the legal wrangling) when finally public will make the tale of the making of TMP seems sane and well-managed.
It says something when people start mixing up Hawley with Shakman because of far too many directors having been involved with this project :-)
Two guys who both turned in scripts that haven’t been produced.
How could my mind slip while writing that comment?
Thanks for the catch guys.
NOTHING will ever make the making of TMP seem sane and well-managed to me.
The more deeply you delve, the more wrongheaded stuff comes up, and there are rarely any reasonable answers or half-decent excuses. I’m kind of glad I can’t purge this info from my mind, because if I watched TMP cold and had no expectations going in, I would probably lose my s___ worse than I did opening day back in 79. Yet nowadays it is easily my most rewatched Trek film, even though I hate many bits of it. Why? So many good things, that’s why. Trumbull VFX. Goldsmith score. The weird low-key ‘police procedural feel, utterly at odds with TOS stylistically. Those somehow offset all the myriad stupidities on-camera and off-.
Yeah that was a crazy production and it’s freaking amazing the product ended up being as good as it is. In retrospect, they should’ve moved it to summer 1980 and given Wise more time.
There have been so many false starts that I don’t even remember this guy being attached.
And how is season 2 of Firefly coming along?
Don’t be mean, not even getting the second half of season 1 is an open wound for me decades later.
I liked Serenity. At least we got a movie.
I just rewatched Star Trek 09 and forgotten how much I love this crew. I would love to see this crew get two more films but it seems like they moved on. Maybe they will get a S3 Pic like send off at some point.
I actually could see them coming back in like 10 years for a “reunion” kind of movie. There’s something to be said for a long wait that gets people *more* excited. I mean, i’ve seen legacy sequel projects that get more love than the originals they’re sequels to…
They need to return the movies to the Prime timeline. The kelvin timeline was a nifty little “what if” experiment, but the Prime timeline is where the focus should be now that a few of the new streaming shows in that setting are having success. If Paramount really wants huge superhero blockbusters from Star Trek, then they will need to expand the Star Trek movie universe greatly instead of trying to depend just on the Kelvin crew for that.
“They need to return the movies to the Prime timeline.”
Yeah! And they could pull it off with the KT cast. There is a huge gap inbetween TMP and TWOK. Take the same cast but do it in the PT. Chekov can already be on the Reliant at this point and makes space for one or two fresh characters.
So you now have two Kirks, Spocks, etc running around in the same universe? How would that work?? Or are you suggesting they would just be the prime universe characters kind of like Tarantino was suggesting with his movie? Again how would that even work?? So we just pretend Spock and Uhura were never a thing and Kirk actually did went on to serve on the Farrugut, etc? Sulu isn’t gay anymore?
To me it just sounds as confusing as the Kelvin movies were to people and even worse because you’re basically rebooting that cast as new characters after 15 years. I don’t remotely get the point of doing that?
Just keep them where they are or just get a new cast for the prime universe.
Nah, Make a good Star Trek movie and it will do fine at the box office regardless of what universe it is in. And personally for me, if I have to live with crossovers between animated and real characters in the Prime timeline, we’ll that’s a much bigger cluster-F for me than worrying about the Kelvin universe. Actually these days I take the Kelvin universe more seriously than the Prime universe — no one has turned part of the Kelvin universe into an animated middle school level sitcom.
This has been going on for so long now, just messy.
But I’m curious if there even is a big interest in a Star Trek film of any kind these days, even amongst the fans?
We’ve been treated to so much Trek content recently, so much diverse content, that I for one anyhow never really even think about another Trek film. The production values of the live-action show are basically on par with anything you’d see in a cinema, and with serialised seasonal arc we’re well used to long-form storytelling in Trek beyond the 45 min episode of old.
And sure, it’d be nice to see the Kelvin cast back together, but they’re all out there doing other wonderful things and we can see any of them in different projects.
Are Trek fans really that eager for Star Trek 4?
For myself, Trek is best on TV.
I would go out to see Trek IV on the opening night, if only from a personal tradition.
While I’m being candid, I was not looking forward to S5 of DSC either.
I’ll watch each week as they drop. Can hope for a few surprises.
“For myself, Trek is best on TV.”
Trek is best being both on TV and the big screen. Those were the days :-)
I brought this up a while back — it’s not like this is a now of never proposition. I mean one option is to let this sit for 5 or 10 years and let the sentimentality factor stew a bit, and then bring them back. There’s no hurry, and the more they wait then it is kind of more cool to bring them back at some point… kind of like between the end of the original series and the motion picture (ignoring the animated series).
Short answer: No
It doesn’t mean it can’t make money but the fact it’s not a guarantee is probably the reason why they are so scared to do another one.
And think most fans prefer the shows because it can get back to pure Star Trek stories again and not just more villains looking to blow up the Federation. That’s another reason people gave up on the Kelvin movies, they stuck to the same template for three films straight and people got bored.
Star Trek isn’t really blockbuster material, and trying to make it such only makes everyone unhappy. Let Star Trek be what it is, and make a small movie; then you might actually make money.
Well said. As for the expensive actors, most of Pine’s resume consists of lower-budget projects, punctuated with a few “blockbusters” here and there.
Not his fault but Wonder Woman 84 was an unmitigated disaster and utter flop. Didn’t even make back its filming budget. Wonder if Dungeons and Dragons will also flop.
Oh, come on. Wonder Woman 84 came out at the height of the pandemic and was released simultaneously on HBO. It was given absolutely no chance of being a financial success.
Excellent point. Theatrical releases during the height of COVID wiped a lot of film’s prospects. I was speaking more toward Pine’s general resume. Most of his roles are in lower budget films; he’s a very solid actor that I enjoy watching, but he doesn’t always command a blockbuster.
Agreed. In fact, the next movie may be good that it’s smaller, not just so it can possibly make real money for a change but that we will simply get a different movie altogether. I mean that’s another part of the problem. When you’re spending $200 million on it, then you feel it has to be more Marvel with supervilains and end of the world consequences. That’s one of the reasons people want cheaper films in the first place, something less plot driven and destruction porn but a smaller and more intimate story as well.
So many years of new Trek on TV have really illuminated that the only reason I ever cared about these movies was because I thought they were all we were going to get from the franchise. Now that that’s not the case, I have zero interest.
I’d be more excited about a movie based on one of the current TV shows, if anything.
That’s all well and good as far as desire, but let’s be real: unless you absolutely hated the Kelvin films (and I know there are plenty that do), every Trek fan will go see a Star Trek movie, even with a bunch of TV shows on the air.
If that was the case, Beyond should’ve made a lot more money then. Or at least what the first one made. And also remember this was before any of the new shows were on and it was the sole product in the marketplace.
Now I agree with you, most hardcore fans will go see it like I did and saw it twice in fact. But the problem with the Star Trek movies has always been the hardcore base is not enough to make a Trek movie successful. It needs the casual audience as well but they are smaller and much more fickle. Many will just not go or wait for it to arrive home if it’s not appealing enough and exactly what happened with Beyond.
And probably even more so now if they are happy just watching the shows.
Excellent points Tiger2.
Let’s add into the equation that new Trek television hasn’t got Paramount+ more than 20 or 25 million subscribers globally.
Now, if a new movie helps drive new interest in the streaming series, that would be worth it. Unlike Top Gun, Star Trek has a thousand hours of content that they need to build a new audience for.
However, if it doesn’t attract new viewers and drive increased subscriptions, it will be a a financial flop.
Even if all those P+ subscribers like Trek and come out once, that would only generate a bit more revenue than production costs, not including the cut for the theatres.
I’ve said this before but I think a big reason they are even trying to make another movie now is to help market Paramount+ more than anything. But they also need it to be hit in the theaters. But that’s also the curse, because there will probably be a lot of people just waiting for it to arrive on P+ unless it really appeals to them.
It’s getting harder for even the biggest IPs to make real money unless you’e freaking Disney. It’s why Star Trek just does better on TV.
STB could have made a lot more money if Paramount had bothered to even adequately market the film. I’m not suggesting it would have outperformed STID or ST09, but most certainly would have performed a lot better than it did.
I obviously agree and has said it many times. But one thing that does get missed is that Paramount obviously expected it to do much higher in general, way higher and probably more than STID because why are you spending basically the same money after you called STID a disappointment? So clearly they were hoping it would surpass that movie and probably over $500 million at least.
But instead it made less than $120 million than STID did and now they been in limbo since. But I do agree, the marketing was awful and probably a big reason why it failed but not the only one either. And frankly I still don’t think it would’ve done more than around $400 million regardless. Yes enough to be considered profitable, but still way below expectations just the same.
But I’m guessing it would’ve at least got us another film by now, just one with a much cheaper budget.
At this point any film we get is going to have a cheaper budget. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next Trek film is a complete reboot of sorts. Maybe it will tie in with the Kelvin characters, maybe not.
It will most certainly have a scaled-down budget.
To be honest though, what director in his/her right might will sign on without some type of guarantee?
I would hope the next movie would be a reboot as well since it’s clear Paramount thinks the Kelvin movies are too expensive to make. Again, that was obvious when they refused to pay Pine his salary back in 2018.
I think cheaper movies will be a huge benefit going forward, especially if they can make a decent profit from them if not big ones, but the Kelvin movies never made big profits in the first place.
These characters, Kirk, Spock etc, are and always will be the heart of Star Trek.
The problem is we have Kirk and Spock back on the small screen now thanks to SNW. And in the original universe at that.
SNW is also good Star Trek and not a Star Wars knock off with really horrid writing like JJ verse. 🙄
Since TNG, there seems to be this big divide between the TV people and the movie people. And yeah the movie people feel it has to be spectacle to get butts in the seats but it loses a lot of the old fans. I really don’t understand why they feel every movie has to be on the level of MCU/James Bond level of action and stakes but it’s also put the movies in a corner they can’t seem to get out off unfortunately.
It would be nice if the next film, whenever that is, could just go a different tone/path altogether. And maybe they don’t have to spend $150 million if they don’t have explosions every 20 minutes and CGI everywhere but who am I kidding.
Yeah. Those are worldwide historically iconic characters and nothing in Star Trek has approached that level. Kirk and Spock are right up there with Luke and Leia.
I liked Nimoy Spock, he really made me want to watch Star Trek. There was something about his voice and the way he did everything logically. I really found that fascinating. I liked how they all worked together and were professionals. I found the same spirit in TNG. Though of course there wasn’t a Bones analog on TNG except Pulaski. Characters facing challenges and solving problems, not space revenge villains. KT and TNG movies didn’t get the spirit of Star Trek. Too enamored with redoing Star trek II Wrath of Khan all over again.
I certainly agree that STID had those issues. I wish they would remove the movies from JJA purview.
I like them but TNG are my characters! And we’re finally getting them back soon!!!
This is getting so incredibly tiresome.
If they ever actually do make another movie, let me know once it it’s released, and I’ll go see it.
Until such time (should it ever come), I have no interest any longer in seeing more of these endless its-on-again/its-off-again stories. Seriously, this is the boy who cried wolf 10 times over. These stories have zero credibility at this point. Not to mention being repetitious and boring.
After ST:TMP came out it made money, but at the expense of a huge budget. Paramount wisely turned over production of TWOK to the television division, which made it on an $11 million budget, about 25% of what TMP cost. They should do that again if they want to show a profit theatrically. If SNW, Picard, and the other shows can produce a quality product at under $10 million per episode that should be seriously considered. As someone else commented the FX and visuals of the shows look cinematic these days. Personally I don’t care if I ever see the Kelvin universe ever again, but if Paramount wants to profit at the box office make a smaller film. Star Trek works best when it is about the characters coming together to remedy a situation in a science fiction setting. Lose the Fast and Furious in space approach and maybe you’ll have something, and it won’t cost as much.
I think the savings these days with the technology what it is, doing a less special effects- and action sci-fi adventure-driven movie are vastly overestimated. Maybe you save 10%, but that’s not the big drop that you and others are assuming.
I agree with you and I would prefer a more thoughtful Trek movie, but is that going to make it a lot cheaper…no!
Actually TMP budget included spend on script developments for past ST projects in the 70s including ‘phase 4’.
So its actual budget was not that high
Meant ‘phase II’ TV project set to launch paramount network in the 70s
I was watching the Strange New Worlds episode again where they evade the Gorn ships by hiding near a black hole and then they have to escape the black hole. It was as thrilling a story as any Trek movie. With the shows having movie quality stories (sometimes) and production values, the theatrical Trek movies seem superfluous.
Funny thing is Alex Kurtzman said that as well as far back as season 2 of Discovery, that the movies are not as important when you can get amazing effects on a TV budget now. I certainly agree, that’s been the case for awhile, especially with all the streaming shows.
And it’s a big problem because you have to now convince people to show up for these movies in droves when they are already getting multiple shows on with strong productions at a much lower price. When it was just the Kelvin movies, it made them feel more unique and special. Now they are just part of a sea of content and makes less people motivated to go.
It’s become beyond comical at this point lol. If Paramount was really serious about this movie, they would’ve just replaced Shakman with a new director and maybe pushed the date back yet another six months or something.
Paramount seems utterly clueless what to do with these movies. How many more years will we keep hearing ‘they’re working on it’ until they actually start making a movie??
It’s funny both this and the Star Wars movies are just in the weirdest development hell I never thought I would ever see either in. And yet their TV output is thriving on a crazy level. In fact Star Wars actually has more shows than Star Trek currently has now. It boggles the mind.
You know despite what i think of how they handled Legacy characters in the sequel trilogy. I would probably watch another film with, Rey, Poe, Finn and Rose. I know everyone supposedly hates the new movies. But despite the way Luke Skywalker was handled, i rather liked the new characters. And i could care less for Mando or any of the shows unless they make a Luke Jedi academy show.
I wouldn’t mind another SW movies with those characters, but yeah hopefully just a better (and more thought out) story, that’s all. It’s funny how fans have basically lambasted the SW sequels and the Kelvin movies when they were originally made with the idea of ‘saving’ these franchises.
Now you get boos from a huge swath over the fanbase with both, although they clearly screwed up SW more lol. Whatever you think of the Kelvin movies, the fact they take place in another universe from the ultra sacred prime universe makes them less of an issue for many fans at least, certainly the ones who hate them.
But there is still another stark difference between the franchises.
One of them, despite alllll the moaning over them, still managed to make $4.3 billion with just three movies.
The other one only made a total of $1.2 billion with their three movies. I don’t think anyone has to guess which is which. ;)
That’s why even though people have complained so much about the SW sequels and has scared Disney from even doing another one, those movies are still crazy huge. You can’t spin that and if they made more of them, they will still do well, just maybe not $4 billion well lol.
Meanwhile, our little franchise is questioning if the next movie can break even or not? So I’m not remotely surprised why the Kelvin movies stalled but it’s a very different reason from why the SW films did.
The Star Wars equivalent of Star trek Beyond was Solo a Star Wars story but it was the only real misfire. It really should have come out before Han Solo was killed off. The bad press the reshoots the film being shot twice. The second of two movies deemed unreleasable Rogue One was the other and it was saved by Gilroy.
Yes in terms of box office, which btw, Solo still made exactly $50 million more than Beyond did lol. But the reshoots added a lot to the budget. It wasn’t for that, it would’ve looked decent, if still nowhere close to the other films.
But not in terms of expectations. People were predicting Solo was going to fail when the movie was announced. Who in their right mind would make a Han Solo prequel when Harrison Ford was still around? It was just tone deaf. No one was asking for a Solo prequel, no one and yeah.
But thinking about it now, it’s funny people were blaming TLJ for it bombing just like people were blaming STID for Beyond bombing. I pushed back against both, no it’s more than that. And that was made clear when TROS showed up and still made a billion dollars lol. No, Solo failed for many other reasons. Sure maybe SOME didn’t watch it over TLJ but that’s not why it failed.
Now if this was third Solo movie and it bombed, then sure you can compare a little more. But it proves when these huge films fall flat on their face it can have serious repercussions. No one is suggesting there will never be anymore films, but they know they have to change something for the long term even though both franchises seems to enjoy wasting everyone’s time with useless movie announcement every year. I just found out a week ago Damon Lindeloff is supposedly making a SW movie lol. Maybe JJ Abrams will direct that one! ;)
Tentpole is a failure for Trek. There is a ceiling. And actors salaries and budgets keep rising. They would like lucky with the current movie climate to make 300 million at the box office. A budget north of 200 million is untenable.
So wait, they didn’t cancel the movie they already moved twice before just removing it completely off the calendar, never told the cast they were making one until after they announced it and none still been told anything a year later, didn’t get a new director after wasting that guys time for a year, don’t have a budget, no one has ever commented on the script or if they ever finished or approved one, but it’s still happening?
Who is running that studio? 🤣
This is just hilarious. Why put yourself through so much pain for another movie that will probably make what the next Sonic the Hedgehog movie will make?
JJ verse is a joke and Paramount keep adding to the punchline. They obviously know only fanboys cares about it but is so desperate to make something although they keep finding ways not to make anything after six years and counting!
Like WTF man?
It’s just beyond weird lol.
I really wish TM would stop making these articles because I can’t stop posting in them but they have just been a total waste of time. It’s been over 6 years and 5 failed projects. My god, make a fucking movie already Paramount or move on! What is the point for a movie they know isn’t going to make anything close to real money? Stop wasting everyone’s time if you are this hesitant to green light a movie.
Wow when you lay it all out there like that…. really has been quite the road to nowhere 😬
Wake me if Paramount get’s something done.
It’s not happening, so there is no point in constantly posting articles about it.
It’s TrekMovie.com. Why would they not report on this?
“My wee granny used to say, ‘Ya cannae break a stick in a bundle.'”
Best thing Paramount can do is go big again like 2009 I mean those movies took 1.2 billion in box office plus however much home video & streaming rights were! for 150M they must be able to make something decent!!
The first three Transformers movies made $2.6 billion with nearly the same budgets of the Kelvin movies (look it up). And if they did that much just at the box office alone, imagine how much bigger the home video sales were as well?
And the last three Transformers movies still made $2.1 billion total.
If you were Paramount and you had to sink your money in one of these franchises, which one would you put it in?
There is a reason why there have been more Transformers movies in the last 5 years (and another one this summer) and 0 Star Trek movies in that same time frame.
None of this is hard. Star Trek is a middle tier franchise. We’ll probably never see another one until Paramount accepts it or it can easily turn into another five years without a movie.
I’d put my money behind Tom Cruise. I’d let him make as many Top Gun’s or Mission Impossible films he wanted.
OK, you win the challenge lol!
I believe the only way for Paramount to get a Star Trek movie back in the headlines now and to the masses is to get Shatner involved somehow.
I know there will be people here who may think that is retrograde and silly but given Paramounts complete balls up of getting this project off the ground over the last years, it could help. But they better move fast… Bill may still be spritely but he hasn’t got that much longer to go!
Even if it was just a marketing ploy this makes sense. Marketing has been lacking and he just is a walking advertisement for the Star Trek Brand. Legacy characters have provided a boost to some of the shows on TV, this is needed on the movie as well. Nimoy was great in the 2009 film, Shatner could provide a boost to this as well. Worth a shot.
I’m not going to discuss the various flaws and merits of the Kelvin films, but I will say that I did enjoy the Pine/Quinto/Urban triumvirate’s take on the three leading roles and wouldn’t mind seeing them go at it one more time before they age out. Preferably with a good script, but I’m willing to settle…
I think they have aged out a bit at this point. By that I mean I don’t the story would be believable if it took place right after the events of STB. For it to work I think the A would need to be out in space for a number of years at this point.
It’s so funny I just read the same article that was also posted on Reddit a few days ago and it’s nothing but snarky bitterness over it. People are really tired of this drum being beat to death and zero to show for it. Either STFU and just make something already or put them on the back burner and move on until you have real confidence and most importantly, money to make it.
I imagine they’ve spent quite a bit of money on all these unmade screenplays. Reminds me of the period in the lead up to the motion picture. Except back then they were desperate to get a movie going, or to get Phase II off the ground. Here i feel like it is empty air, and their is no will at all too greenlight a movie.
I think once they got to Beyond and realized these movies weren’t going to be global contenders, then the drive to make them just became less so. They still want to make more but it’s obviously not the same anymore. They aren’t this major franchise that will bring any huge hype, sell a lot of merchandising with, excite teenagers, etc. It’s just these middle-of-road set of movies that can get them an OK profit but nothing beyond that besides the old nerds blabbing about it on message boards like this for a year.
Now it seems like they want to make it to have something more for Paramount+ and it’s really hard to motivate them to make something that will probably do around $400 million or possibly less regardless how much money they put in.
So I don’t really blame them, but if their heart is not really in it, then stop pretending like it is.
Just my opinion … but … any money laying around in the Paramount film division for the next Kelvin film, hand it over to the TV division where they can spread it around to the existing Trek projects and whatever is waiting in the wings to come after PIC. Star Trek is never going to be a huge blockbuster film franchise. Yes, there have been some enjoyable films, but most of those came from a time when episodic television didn’t have cinematic quality.
Oh lord. We are still on about this? It’s not happening people. I’m guessing the next Star Trek Movie will be a Prodigy movie ala Spiderman.
It’s hilarious bro! Paramount just loves trolling gullible fans.
I would love them to make a Prodigy movie!
Its more likely to be a Kelvin/Prime movie ala Spiderman No Way Home :)